I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the tag “War on Poverty”

At the Huffington Post (Arianna Nation), there is a story concerning “class conflict awareness.” This is odd for three reasons. First, there is no real “class” structure in America. There is income divides, but America, unlike Europe of old, does not have a system in place where by if you are born into a lower class you remain in a lower class your whole life. In America, anyone born in poverty has a real opportunity to rise up and out of it and move into the middle and upper echelons. There are countless, and many told, stories to prove this. Secondly, the Arianna Nation, in its broad, but failed, attempt to sock it to conservatives once against falls flat on its own butt. The reason for the income divide in America has everything to do with liberalism and the policies and legislation liberals have been able to pass which have crippled business in America and have resulted in America’s economy tanking, job loss, home foreclosures, the high rate of unemployment, etc. Thirdly, “class conflict awareness” is simply another term, a euphemism, describing jealousy. Poor people are jealous of the rich. What else is new?

Significantly more Americans see “very strong” or “strong” class conflict between the rich and poor, according to a survey released Wednesday by the Pew Research Center. The results show that Americans think that conflicts between the rich and poor are stronger than immigrant and native born, black and white and young and old.

In other words, poor Americans who have embraced liberalism, have championed liberalism, have gone to bat and cheer-leaded for liberalism, have bought into liberalism all their lives – have been deceived and screwed by liberalism, which was liberalism’s intention all along. Being poor and liberal is a deadly combination. How many poor people who follow liberalism religiously ever get out of poverty?

Poor people are inundated with liberal propaganda telling them their poverty is a result of the “rich getting richer” off their backs. But what liberalism never explains to poor Americans is how they can reverse their poverty status and become, if not wealthy, then wealthier. That, of course, would be counter productive to liberalism since liberalism can only exist so long as a substantial number and percentage of people remain convinced their poverty is a result of the “evil rich” and conservatives who, purportedly, but not in actuality, don’t care about the poor.

Liberalism is the “Jack the Ripper” of economics. Does anyone really believe that a business owner who has had their taxes and their tax rate raised by liberal politicians, and is threatened with having those taxes raised higher, is going say, “Well, now that I have less money for my business and myself, and will soon have even less than that, I can pay my employees more,”? Is that how business works?

Ladies and gentlemen, if you did not already know, (and unfortunately most liberals still refuse to accept this reality) no business can function properly and effectively the higher its taxes are. Yet, liberals demand more from business owners under the guise and smoke screen of “paying their fair share”. It’s a canard. It’s a type of psychological warfare liberal politicians use to keep their base, composed mostly of poor Americans, energized and brainwashed, and to psychologically stun and debilitate business owners, shaming them into thinking one’s poverty is their, the business owner’s, fault.

The ongoing economic recession also may have magnified class differences as income inequality has risen.

The economic crash America has suffered, and continues to endure, was designed by liberal politicians. We have higher unemployment now, over 8%, than when Obama took office. The reason for this is because during Obama’s first two years, the Democrat Party held control over both the House and the Senate, which allowed them to pass their liberal, anti-business, anti-capitalist agenda. Had McCain won the Presidency, and/or had Republicans won the House and Senate, we would not have been in this economic mess because Republicans would have blocked Democrats from instigating destructive legislation, such as TARP, and other socialistic programs, and they would have blocked the Democrats from dramatically raising the debt ceiling.

Had Republicans retained the White House, had they won the House and Senate, this recession would have been over by now and unemployment, which was just over 7% in January 2009, would have steady fallen as conservatives began passing meaningful business tax cuts, cutting meaningless regulations, cutting out unnecessary government programs which only purpose is to keep the poor, poor, and cutting the size and scope of government itself. We would not be over 15 trillion dollars in debt if Republicans were in control. Why are the poor not as outraged as they ought to be that Barack Obama has spent so many trillions of dollars and provided them with little to nothing to show for it? If poverty is getting worse, which liberals contend, and if government is spending more to “fix” poverty, why are their policies making the poor suffer more? The answer is one in which the poor don’t want to stomach.

Democrats in general — and President Barack Obama in specific — have also spoken out about income inequality. “Now, this kind of inequality — a level that we haven’t seen since the Great Depression — hurts us all…”

Here is a reality check. One cannot get their-self out of poverty on a welfare or unemployment check. Nor can one expect to move into the middle or upper class by levying higher taxes and regulations on the “rich”. The more businesses are taxed, the less business owners have in which to invest in their businesses – including their employees. Although this is common sense, there are too many people who still cannot understand the simplest, the most basic of economics. The “fair share” liberals always whine about is money in which business owners will pass along to both their costumers and their employees. Their employees will bear the brunt of the “fair share” tax hikes first by either losing benefits, hours, wages, raises, etc., or by being fired as business owners are forced to downsize their business, and their workforce, in order to remain afloat. In other words, a business owner will sacrifice their employees before their customers, and a business owner will sacrifice their employees before they sacrifice their business.

Here is one more reality check. Once a person actually does move into the middle class, from poverty, and realizes how much money the government is taking from their paycheck, how much more the government wants to take away, and how the government will turn a blind eye to the middle class, it dawns on them how destructive liberalism really is. If you want the government to take care of you, remain poor. But it comes with a heavy price. You must always remain poor.

That is the destructive hold liberalism has over the poor in America. And that is “the answer the poor do not want to stomach”. Barack Obama and the Democrat Party have spent trillions of dollars, racked up more debt in three years than George Bush racked up in his eight years in office – mostly waging an important and necessary War on Terror. For all that money Obama wasted, which must at some point be paid back, more people are in poverty now than were in poverty when he took office. Do we see the correlation to liberal policy and poverty, and the rate and increase in poverty as a result of liberal policy?

If you were poor in 2008 and you voted for Obama, and you yet remain in poverty, who is really to blame for your economic situation? How will voting for Obama, for Obama’s liberal policies, in 2012 make any more of a positive difference for you, your family, than was made then?

In other words – are you better off now than you were four years ago? And, how will re-electing Obama move you out of poverty if it didn’t do so then?

Liberals hate Christianity, don’t believe in Christianity and go out of their way to separate themselves and America from Christianity as distantly as possible under the false and mislabeled pretext of separation of church and state. Yet, liberals will never miss the chance to pull Jesus over to their side and into their cause. Liberals, who, remember, mock Christianity and most of whom don’t even believe Jesus actually existed, nonetheless will use him as their poster child, set him upon their leftist pedestal and mold him into an image of their very own savior; a man whose spiritual presence they vehemently renounce, whose existence they adamantly reject and whose mind they desperately covet for their own, all the while they spit on him. Liberal Christians are an oxymoron and are in actuality counterfeit Christians as is evident by their own positions.

Jesus would have been just as abhorred with the cold and calculated corruption of liberalism we see in America today as he was with the cold and calculated corruption of the money changers he dealt with personally, nearly 2000 years ago. If Jesus returned now, he would make liberals uncomfortably aware of just how conservative he was then, and remains to this day. If Jesus returned now, and came to America, would liberals welcome him as they do all illegal immigrants and fight for his right to remain, or would they demand he be deported back to Heaven ASAP? Would liberals allow him to vote? Would the ACLU fight to allow him to vote just as they fight to allow illegal aliens to vote?

Jesus, in his time, was vocal about the plight of the poor and of poverty. But where in his teachings did Jesus ever advocate for higher taxation on the rich, and all citizens, bigger government and more government control of the populace as a means to curb and eliminate poverty?

Liberals, having no conscience, would take conservatives to task for what they see as an indefensible response to poverty in America, as if conservatives have no respect, no pity for the poor. These liberal parasites have taken the “what would Jesus do” question to new lows in their quest to impose socialism on Americans.

Advocating for the poor and ensuring the poor are treated with respect and dignity is not liberalism, it is in fact conservatism. What is liberalism is the anti-Jesus response to poverty liberals promote in the name of Jesus. That is, to have our money confiscated by government which, in turn, would dispense those funds, as it saw fit, into government-run programs that provide food, clothing and shelter to the poor.

What is the conservative response liberals so oppose? To care for the poor through non-profit, and often religious, charities funded through private donations and unpaid volunteers. (something similar to “it takes a village” but without the stain of socialism). It is because liberals cannot control charities they fear and scorn them and look to eliminate them. It is a government-run monopoly liberals seek, although they pretend to “oppose” monopolies. Should government have a monopoly on poverty, a hold on the poor in America – which is an anti-Jesus concept – what this creates is a sizable and intimidating voting block ensuring liberals keep power indefinitely. This is what liberals are really after, not ending poverty in America. Liberals need poverty, vast swaths of poverty stretching across America. In other words, the fewer people there are in poverty, the harder it is to control people.

Liberals also insist Jesus would be an OWS supporter. This is of course complete and absolute nonsense. Those who engaged in protesting Wall Street and elsewhere throughout America were, and are, themselves as lazy and idle, shiftless and mindless, and worthless to society, as one can be. The type of counterproductive, anti-societal, anti-work ethic lifestyle the average OWS protester lives is a destroyer of community not a builder of cities. They protested for more government control and power over people solely on the basis that they, the OWS protesters, are so little enthused with work, so little driven to be productive citizens, they want, and therefore need, to be taken care of by government because they don’t want the responsibility of taking care of themselves – that is too much work! So, tax the rich, give the money to government to create support programs which funnel money, food, clothing, housing, education grants, etc. to people who have no intention of ever being, of ever doing, anything. Capitalism forces people to either work for a living or descend into poverty. Socialism forces everyone into poverty and government dependence.

Why would Jesus oppose capitalism when it is capitalism, and only capitalism, which drives an economy? How else is money created but through the engine of capitalism and the marketplace which, the freer it is, the faster the money flows, the more money that flows and the more money that flows directly into the hands of the workers? Stifle capitalism, set up road blocks in the form of crippling and excessive taxation and regulation on businesses and business owners and what happens? The economy recedes. Businesses fail and go out of business. People lose their jobs. Less money is created. Less money flows from one hand to another. Peoples savings diminish and they fall, if not into poverty, then closer to it.

Barack Obama’s ideals, his values and morals – deeply rooted in socialism, epitomizes everything Jesus fought to overturn. How could anyone expect Jesus would want Obama to be reelected? or anyone like Obama? Should Mitt Romney be the Republican nominee, Jesus will be casting his vote for him.

Is there a better way to wipe out hunger in America than using taxpayer funded PBS muppets to brainwash children, scaring them into thinking there is no hope, no solutions, no answers to one of America’s most puzzling and perplexing dilemma’s to be found anywhere but in big, expansive – and ever-expanding – expensive government programs?

Despite the fact that America produces enough food to feed every single American citizen, enough to satisfy fullness and prevent anyone from going to bed, or to school, hungry, including the 11 million or so illegal aliens residing in parts “unknown” throughout the U.S., we are still dealing with the reality that over 46 millions Americans are on food stamps – and that number continues to grow, and about half of all Americans remain on some type of government assistance program – and without doing anything at all, or continuing to do the same thing, relying too heavily on government “handouts”, we can expect that percentage to rise.

We need viable, realistic, cost-effective alternatives!

How did we become a nation founded on “rugged individualism”, and the principle of self-reliance and independence, to a nation of utterly inept citizens, scores of millions of Americans that have gone back to the pacifier and mother’s milk? If, when one enters adulthood, if becoming, and being, a man, or woman, is marked by leaving the nest, what does that make those of us that revert back to it? The American Experience was designed in part to end government’s monopoly on our lives. We are supposed to be in control and in charge of our own destinies. Not government.

Somehow, over the course of the past 80 years, from FDR’s “War on the Great Depression” to LBJ’s “War on Poverty” government has slowly but surely crept deeper and deeper into our everyday lives. Since Obama became President, that pace of government expansion, government interference, government dependency has quickened. We don’t seem to be as alarmed as we ought to be. And, unfortunately, too many of us are relieved with the increasing relevance of government control, too comfortable passing on our problems to government. But the quicker we are in letting government solve our problems, the quicker government is to use our problems against us, for their gain. Don’t we know that by now?

The growing number of Americans, and Americans children in particular, going hungry, is but another example of how government has taken a problem that could have easily been resolved through other means, and turned it into a way for greedy, unscrupulous Washington politicians to enlarge government, create and expand unnecessary government programs, fuel those programs by printing money that does not exist; using deceptive tactics to scare Americans into believing taxes need to be raised to further fund these social government programs which millions of Americans now rely on; and, by using frightening language, spreading fear among these millions of Americans – and their children – they will be forced off these programs without an increase in taxes and made to suffer the devastating consequences.

It is this irrational reliance on the federal government, this unnatural obsession with clinging to government that has produced a bumper crop of hungry, starving Americans.

Federal government has absolutely no business providing breakfast, lunch, dinner, or any type of snacks or food to school children. How did we allow this mess to be created in the first place? How did we allow it to escalate? It is out of control, and the only response from politicians is to expand it. And with the number of hungry Americans steadily rising, will we ever get a firmer grip on it? Can we get a firmer grip on it right now?

Absolutely!

Although farm land in America continues to diminish, through advanced technology, farmers are nonetheless able to produce a surplus of crops, enough food that if properly dispensed could feed every single “starving” child and “food insecure” muppet in America.

Yet, Washington politicians continue to play politics with our, and our children’s, stomachs. In other words, if your children are going to school without first having had breakfast, it is because our own federal government is holding hostage the surplus of food American farmers produce annually. Their demands for releasing this surplus? Keep them in power and keep their programs alive and well-funded; keep yourself dependent on government (them), and keep thinking you need government (them) for your every need, your day-to-day survival, and for ensuring you and your children will have food on your plates come tomorrow. Give in to their demands by forking over the food to them, and they will distribute it throughout all of America’s public schools.

We can do better!

There is a tremendous, untapped opportunity to put an imposing dent in America’s hunger crisis using Not for Profit agencies and organizations that, working together, and in direct conjunction with, local farmers, local governments and local food banks, can ensure no one, no one child, is left hungry and no one is forced to rely on the federal government for food. The only involvement the federal government ought to have in this is providing substantial tax relief to those farmers that are willing to contribute a portion of their surplus to their local communities. States can also benefit farmers by providing tax relief to farmers.

The food to feed the hungry is there. It exists now. Getting it to the people who need it, and how the food is delivered is what is at issue. Not for Profits, and the millions of people who volunteer to aid these organizations, can do a better, faster and more cost efficient job at dispensing food than the federal government.

By removing the burden of government, and the taxpayer, from having to subsidize food to the hungry, billions, perhaps hundreds of billions, of dollars overall will be saved; scores of programs that deal with hunger can be eliminated. Less government bureaucracy, less government red tape, less government dependency means less government.

By taking these steps, we can easily eliminate hunger in America so that no child, or muppet, need go hungry, or rely on government to provide them with their meals.

Millions of Americans are starving for more than food. We are also starving for creative solutions, outside of government. Does the federal government, and do politicians, have the courage to allow this to happen? Do we have the courage to ween ourselves off the government pacifier?